Love this comment

That’s what I thought too.

Well, rats laugh when you tickle them. Ticklish spots are vulnerable areas

Or realistic… the dark and the light are the same

Berkeley, Locke, and Hume all use extensive rational analysis, so I don’t think using rational analysis takes you out of the realm of empiricism

First of all, i Hope u ll understand me: english isn't my first language and talking about philosophy Is not that Easy for me. I see a pretty big fallacy in ur argument: if, Indeed the world has no meaning, u cant talk bout some "survival mechanism": ur trying to give meaning to something that ur saying doesnt have meaning (even the mere purpose of survival Is a meaning: the world exist in order to continue existing). When u say something dont have any meaning u cabt Say anything else, because u Will inevitably end up organizing that thing (Kant explain this really really well, prolly u know that better than me, judging on the terminology u used) and, doing so, giving a meaning to that thing only becouse in some way It appears ti u as a phenomena. As I said earlier: that thing exist in order to continue existing. That Is a meaning. Because of this to do such argument as yours u have to suppose not that the world doesnt have a meaning, but that It has and u cant possibly know It. I really Hope u explained myself at least a bit, but i lack of all english philosphical terminology, so i dont think so: if u think what i wrote doesnt male any sense probably ur right.

>What does not fit is a hunger for meaning. It is bizarre that we would have our survival instincts that were finally tuned by evolutionary advantage sabotaged by a desire for imaginary vague notions of some non-existent thing?

sabotaged? in what possible way? between our curiosity and imagination and our need for meaning we have built the world, in terms of evolution we have won the game.

in terms of animal success we have dominated the earth more completely and successfully then any other species in lifes history and we did it in some million years, a blip in the earths lifetime.

without question its had negative effects but in terms of evolutionary success (ie domination of the environment) its hands down been an advantage.

Thank you very much.

Part two helped and found me at the right time, so to speak.

not everyone ends up there, i was raised to understand that life is what we make it, i literally never went through a period of existential dread and i dont get why so many do.

from the start i was told life has no purpose per say, maybe this is an issue for people who were told there is some inherent purpose?

next 'sense' in what context? from where i stand the world does make sense in that there is no point, we reproduce and we die. our societies are contradictory and bizarre but also make sense in the context of what we are and history.

https://thesynchronicity.substack.com/p/how-to-live-in-a-world-that-makes

So recently after watching so many trippy Nova Science Documentaries on Physics and the Universe I started posting throughout all the science reddit subs.

I learned absolutely incredibly trippy and interesting tidbits that I am forever grateful for.

In regards to Philosophy when I was doing undergraduate studies in the area I remember learning about Zenos Paradoxs, Philosophy of language, Philosophy of mind.

Zenos paradoxes made me much more aware of how I was thinking.

Very similar to Zenos paradoxes Philosophy of language made me realize that the very concepts and language I use can create problems in and of themselves.

Philosophy of mind though really went even further!

We learned how like being pinched although all physical reactions, touch of skin to skin, nerves firing, brain interpreting, etc. Still gives rise to an immaterial reality (feeling). And this brings up questions like how do physical and immaterial things have causality, etc.

It opened up how even now-a-days on things we think we have solved are completely open and how much of our "solved" relies on reductionism and eliminativism.

So with philosophy what are tidbits and things you have learned that were huge for you!!!

I'd love to see the magic of philosophy really shared here as I imagine like many these moments were transformative and made you really fall in love with the whole discipline :) \

It is time for Philosophy to shine!! :)

When I realised the meaning of life was what I chose my life felt fuller.

Neitzsches thoughts are in every person who really thinks, but you xsn sense the torture as well as beauty I'm his words

Doesn’t the problem of making sense enter the equation when someone notices they are suffering and seeks to identify why? To me that requires a general narrative of how the suffering began or when it was first noticed, and what larger forces may or may not have been at play.

Would you dm me part 1?

Sorry I thought you had half a brain. And also I did.

> I think, over time, intellectuals in general became more critical of those power dynamics. Enlightenment thinkers were critical of religious dogma, liberal theorists were imagining an alternative to the monarchies of the day, socialists were critical of capitalist structures, and anarchists were critical of the emerging nation state.

I think of it as an onion that can be peeled, except when people peel off a layer or two (genuine or otherwise), they often find something (genuine or otherwise) so compelling that the possibility that there are more layers often slips their mind.

> The remaining intellectuals are fearful of speaking out too much, subverted to serve power unintentionally, suppressed entirely, or quietly sabotaged through language and information manipulation.

...~hypnotized

> Along with this deepening skepticism for the traditional structures of society came backlash. History could have probably gone one way or the other, but the way it went was a victory for the power structures against intellectual analysis. Today, I think, we're living in an era (a kind of Dark Age in a sense) where unjustified power structures have asserted themselves (mostly through violence, their primary tool) and seem invincible (and even inevitable).

I think the primary tool is propaganda - propaganda is an interesting word, because the unique way that each mind conceptualizes it (both in general but especially with respect to certain scenarios) is a function of propaganda itself. (Note: my usage of the word "propaganda" includes both deliberately nefarious kinds, as well as just plain old misinformation, regardless of motive).

> As far as social media, I think many experts in their field have little to gain and just don't engage.

Agree...but I am speaking of those that do, and among those there seems to be little diversity when it comes to behavior regarding beliefs/truth - many things come in a normal distribution, some of them are easy for the mind to accept (height), some are not (cognitive behavior).

> In person, I find that intellectuals are more than happy to engage in conversation. Excited even, given how few and far between it is to find someone willing or enthusiastic towards stimulating conversation.

Until one touches certain sensitive topics!

> We're trained by corporate propaganda (which we call advertising instead) to act based on our feelings ...

Agree...but I am proposing that there is a subset of ideas that ~no one can escape, that seem to be so intolerable to the mind, it melts down into logical and emotional chaos - we've all seen videos of batshit insane Trump supporters, I believe that ~all people can be brought to a similar state of mind (if perhaps to a lesser magnitude of accompanying bizarre behaviors).

> I've seen this sometimes, and I wonder if it's a form of learned helplessness.

Learned via propaganda is my intuition - my theory is: if someone starts talking about your plan but in a way that you haven't encountered before, or in a way that proposes opposing/modifying The System, fight or flight type heuristics kick in, and the conscious mind is helpless against that.

It's a wild and wacky world out there!!

I think often times it's the fear of suffering that triggers our actions.

Always? No. Often? Yes.

Schizophrenia obviously is a nonsensical category so is not valid. It was obvious to psychologist Don Bannister, back in 1968, that DSM criteria makes schizophrenia “a concept so diffuse as to be unusable in a scientific context.” Specifically, it is possible for one individual to be diagnosed with schizophrenia based on two symptoms that are completely different than the two symptoms of another individual similarly diagnosed.

It is also cannot be reliably assessed by clinicians with a kappa score of .46 and not .70 or above.

Much of what is considered a delusion is culturally and politically based and there are many high functioning people considered sane , by society, who 'hear voices'.

Schizophrenia does not exist it is just a wastebasket for disturbing behavior.

Also, people diagnosed with 'mental illness' have better recovery rates in 'third world' countries. My guess is because they are not exposed to the toxic Western psychiatric establishment.

What is Francis Bacon, dirt?

Summary: Morality exists only within the boundaries of freedom. First, the experience of freedom is a certainty, a la Descartes. Second, freedom is the standard for judging moral claims. We cannot be held morally responsible for actions that are beyond our control. And moral claims must outweigh the value of personal choice.

Conscious experience also sets the inherent boundaries of our moral community, which would exclude non-conscious life, inanimate objects, and mental fictions. Although that does not exclude a trustee relationship.

Yeah most likely, I agree

Is it accurate to speak with such certainty about the causal factors in mental illness being solely socioeconomic in nature ? Most schizophrenics report disruption of thought and/or auditory hallucinations. These tend to go along with social withdrawal from friends and family. There seems no question that they suffer immensely. I have worked with such people for 40 years. Can you really take their self- reports, and the accumulated observations of those that work in mental health, and say these problems are best explained by the evils of the capitalist system ? And the mental health professionals are all collectively being used by the power elite to maintain inequality ? Such a narrative, while satisfying to those seeking change to our flawed system, does not fit the observed data. What about cross-cultural rates of psychosis that includes non-captitalist cultures ? Why do some tribal people in Africa, or Innuit of the Arctic also display symptoms of schizophrenia? By your reasoning, such groups should be free of such problems because they only emerge from a dysfunctional capitalist socioeconomic setting. My sense is your argument is faulty.

> And of the ones we do produce, do you think it is possible that they are "of a different kind", perhaps in ways we are not able to discern?

I think somewhat. Historically, intellectuals tended to be part of the privileged class, and though they often challenged certain norms, they just as often served to justify the forms of power of their era.

I think, over time, intellectuals in general became more critical of those power dynamics. Enlightenment thinkers were critical of religious dogma, liberal theorists were imagining an alternative to the monarchies of the day, socialists were critical of capitalist structures, and anarchists were critical of the emerging nation state.

Along with this deepening skepticism for the traditional structures of society came backlash. History could have probably gone one way or the other, but the way it went was a victory for the power structures against intellectual analysis. Today, I think, we're living in an era (a kind of Dark Age in a sense) where unjustified power structures have asserted themselves (mostly through violence, their primary tool) and seem invincible (and even inevitable).

The remaining intellectuals are fearful of speaking out too much, subverted to serve power unintentionally, suppressed entirely, or quietly sabotaged through language and information manipulation.

> Agree....and I (perceive myself to) notice this in many different forms....for example, on plausibly "intellectual" subreddits, people (including genuinely intelligent ones) refusing to engage in intellectual discussion. Do you think my read is off here? ("For many intellectuals, their expertise is a point of shame or brings out reactionary violence" suggests not?)

As far as social media, I think many experts in their field have little to gain and just don't engage. With misinformation so rampant and many of the people posting being either hired by corporations to serve their agenda or simply automated bots, it's likely not the best use of time.

In person, I find that intellectuals are more than happy to engage in conversation. Excited even, given how few and far between it is to find someone willing or enthusiastic towards stimulating conversation.

> I've yet to encounter someone who can push beyond their innate reaction, although to be fair I haven't done too many experiments.

We're trained by corporate propaganda (which we call advertising instead) to act based on our feelings even when it contradicts our ability to reason. That's the defining characteristic of a consumer, and I think it takes a somewhat exceptional individual to overcome that. The sciences have more and more been about controlling populations, and the methods being employed on us are extremely effective. That's what I suspect is happening, and why we can see it getting worse over our lifetimes as new methods are developed and perfected.

> Maybe not the same thing, but I have noticed a pattern where if someone is in favour of a general idea, and if you go like "Ya, yes let's do that then....", people suddenly switch tack and are like "Whoa whoa whoa, <and then various reasons why actually pursuing the very goal they proposed is a bad idea, or their interest level in their own idea simply drops 90%>".

I've seen this sometimes, and I wonder if it's a form of learned helplessness. We are certainly trained, from childhood on, to feel like we can't have any impact on the world. It's one thing to speculate about the future and another thing entirely to work towards that. This is a major problem I've seen in movements that want to change society for the better, and probably one of the major reasons why we've gone through such a long period without serious rebellion or revolution to the current conditions. At the same time, though, I'm seeing this less and less among younger people, so there might be a time soon that there is once again active resistance to worsening conditions.

A feeling of absurdity and nihilism is a type of suffering. It's not called "existential dread" for the comfy feeling it gives people, after all.

Also, the idea that seems to be rooted in this comment (and other comments that you posted in this thread), that people in poor living conditions or poor physical conditions aren't faced with existential crises or nihilism because "they're too busy getting out of their suffering" is both incredibly condescending and betrays an utter lack of familiarity with said people. In actuality, it is the people who are faced with challenging lives that tend to be the most sensitive to the absurdity of it all, rather than people who happened to benefit from said absurdity.